Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code page 220

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 220

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDB issue, which also probably fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow • talk 23:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding any references to this. ASCII code subset, could perhaps merge there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any WP:GNG rationale for this article. No prominent mentions or analysis as an object or as a set. I feel that WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE are the best policy reasons (other than lack of independent notability) for deletion. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.